[RC5] Possibly reporting unchecked blocks as done

Joe Zbiciak j-zbiciak1 at ti.com
Wed Jan 21 01:12:36 EST 1998


[v2.7001.381]
Sender: owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rc5

'Ray Vanlandingham' said previously:

| Okay, no problem, I've got 40 blocks checked, and 8 blocks in my 
inbuffer.
| Now I start the client with the -flush option.
| 
| >[01/20/98 15:46:04 GMT] The proxy says: "Distributed.Net DESRC5 v274b
| >proxy [proxy01.insync.net]"
| >>>>>>>>>
| >[01/20/98 15:46:06 GMT] Sent 8 block(s) to server
| >
| >[01/20/98 15:46:08 GMT] The proxy says: "Distributed.Net DESRC5 v274b
| >proxy
| >[proxy01.insync.net]"
| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
| >[01/20/98 15:46:25 GMT] Sent 40 block(s) to server
| 
| Unless I'm reading things wrong, it looks like the client reported 8 
block
| that were /not/ checked (the ones in my inbuffer) to the keyserver as
| having been checked. [...]


This may be a bit of confusion in the messages.  If you had any RC5 blocks
buffered up, those would have been sitting around flushed (since you 
weren't
up to your flushing threshold yet) in the first round of flushing.  From
what I've observed, the client goes through all the motions for RC5 first,
DES second, whenever you request -fetch, -flush, -update, whatever.

Otherwise, you do have a serious bug here.

Is there any chance you might have cracked a few RC5 blocks (eg. random
blocks during a period that you ran out of DES blocks, or something?)

Regards,

--Joe

-- 
 +----------- Joseph Zbiciak ----------+
 | - - - -  j-zbiciak1 at ti.com  - - - - |  Join your idle CPU cycles into 
the
 |- http://www.primenet.com/~im14u2c/ -|  world's largest supercomputer:
 | - - -Texas Instruments, Dallas- - - |  http://www.distributed.net/
 +-----#include <std_disclaimer.h>-----+

--
To unsubcribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list